Supreme Court marshal says justices were
part of investigation, but didn't sign
sworn affidavits
Fox News,
by
Bill Myers *
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
1/21/2023 12:06:44 AM
Supreme Court Marshal Gail Curley said that justices were part of the investigation into who leaked a draft opinion to Politico last year.
"During the course of the investigation, I spoke with each of the Justices, several on multiple occasions. The Justices actively cooperated in this iterative process, asking questions and answering mine. I followed up on all credible leads, none of which implicated the Justices or their spouses. On this basis, I did not believe that it was necessary to ask the Justices to sign sworn affidavits," Curley said in a statement on Friday.
Curley's statement comes one day
Reply 1 - Posted by:
kono 1/21/2023 2:02:42 AM (No. 1383685)
Wouldn't want to risk perjuring themselves, now, would they? Confidence in this high court already wasn't very high.
44 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
mifla 1/21/2023 5:14:20 AM (No. 1383696)
Gail,
The flaw in your plan is that liberals will lie when it suits their purpose. You cannot shame them.
Sincerely,
33 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Flyball Dogs 1/21/2023 5:29:08 AM (No. 1383700)
I’m quite tired of the blathering about this.
With the exception of Justice Thomas (and probably Alito), I think any one of the others would ‘throw mama from the bus’ if it suited them.
In this digital tech age, and with cameras tracking your every move, it insults my intelligence that they say they don’t know who the leaker is. They knew within an hour.
Nothing will be done (a la Hillary), so let it go. The horse has been dead. Quit beating it and let it rest.
29 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
DCGIRL 1/21/2023 5:40:29 AM (No. 1383709)
They know did it. Now Roberts is trying to cover it up.
37 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
judy 1/21/2023 5:57:38 AM (No. 1383716)
Another corrupt agency....
29 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 1/21/2023 6:53:39 AM (No. 1383737)
Can't find the leaker, sometimes can't find the Constitution, what an outfit!
39 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
bpl40 1/21/2023 7:06:46 AM (No. 1383744)
It’s the Wide Latina.
21 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 1/21/2023 7:21:58 AM (No. 1383754)
I'd bet none of the high and mighty were even interviewed. If anything, they were sent a questionnaire to be completed by a staff member. In Washington an "investigation" is an euphemism for cover-up.
21 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
billa57 1/21/2023 7:35:57 AM (No. 1383765)
I think the orders for the leak came from higher up. The Deep Sate needed a rallying point for their base. To bring this up before the election was planned. It looks like control runs deep.
15 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
smokincol 1/21/2023 8:04:40 AM (No. 1383780)
and the questioning of the Justices went like this:
Investigator: Did you release the draft of the Dobbs decision?
Justice #1: No
Investigator: Thank You, Case Closed
and so on, and so on, and so on....
this is what is known as an investigation? - not in my book, it's not
13 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
chillijilli 1/21/2023 8:25:08 AM (No. 1383795)
We don't know if Curley's telling the WHOLE truth on this. Think behind the lines. Curley says she didn't ask the Justices or their spouses to sign sworn affidavits because she found nothing that implicated them. WHEN were the Justices told that affidavits wouldn't be required--- before, during, or after their interviews?
If innocent, wouldn't the Justices have DEMANDED to sign a sworn affidavit which could then be used as further evidence of their veracity? WHY did Curley throw the Justices a lifeline in the form of no requirement for a sworn affidavit? She had to think that at least one Justice was in trouble or she would have let the process go forward with signed affidavits reflecting judicial standards for accuracy and honesty.
17 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
franq 1/21/2023 8:52:39 AM (No. 1383827)
The Federal institutions are an illusion, from top to bottom. Nothing more than parasites and drains on the public.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
stablemoney 1/21/2023 8:57:02 AM (No. 1383832)
Other people that are citizens were asked to sign affadavits, why not the justices?
16 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
udanja99 1/21/2023 9:08:18 AM (No. 1383840)
The decision was leaked to a couple of Politico reporters. Have either of them been investigated as to who gave them the info? Yeah. Thought not.
14 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Texpub 1/21/2023 9:43:11 AM (No. 1383886)
Look up Elizabeth Deutsch. Law clerk married to Politico reporter who had a by-line with Josh Gerstein who broke the news. Hmmmm.
14 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
felixcat 1/21/2023 9:50:28 AM (No. 1383896)
I don't know Marshal Gail's background but in any investigation, unless you get sworn, signed statements from the witnesses, subjects, etc - they're useless otherwise.
12 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
janjan 1/21/2023 9:58:53 AM (No. 1383912)
I am totally willing to believe that one of the justices leaked this decision and it wasn’t one of the conservatives. They had nothing to gain.
11 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
jimkata 1/21/2023 10:42:38 AM (No. 1383988)
Working for a defense industry I know I can be polygraphed if something is amiss.
While not legal in a court of law, everyone could take a lie detector test and they would know who did this.
But since all are lawyers they probably refused.
I have no choice as a defense contractor, why is the important areas of government exempt from this possibility?
10 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
Zigrid 1/21/2023 11:21:14 AM (No. 1384037)
As long as Roberts is in charge...WE will never know the truth...he's been in bed with Obama...pardon the pun...since he sworn Obama in on the koran in the private ceremony...does he think WE will forget that...old age has many advantages...WE never forget anything...unless you're ole Joe...who can't remember anything....this latest findings is not the truth...it's just convenient ...wonder how justice Thomas feels about now....
11 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Venturer 1/21/2023 11:29:13 AM (No. 1384045)
The fact that Gail Curley is still working at the Supreme Court is reason enough to know why no one signed an affidavit.
She isn't stupid.
5 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
rikkitikki 1/21/2023 11:31:42 AM (No. 1384047)
The marshall whitewashed the investigation because one of the liberal justices is the leaker.
11 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Luandir 1/21/2023 2:17:31 PM (No. 1384127)
As #13 said, did any of the Justices offer to sign an affidavit?
1 person likes this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
GoodDeal 1/21/2023 5:20:21 PM (No. 1384194)
Why of course they didn't. They all took the 5th. Coverup at the highest level. And they wonder why we have no trust in any of the three branches anymore. This is the result of lawlessness and the post-constitutional era we are in.
1 person likes this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
Lawsy0 1/21/2023 8:39:58 PM (No. 1384300)
I can hardly tell ''legalese'' from gobbledygook any more. It smells on ice, though.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
W/Shannon Bream and Adam Sabes.